Review of academic journal article/book chapter

The Festival of Britain was a special event which took place all across Britain in 1951. It was a national spectacle in which helped with both the recovery and the progress of Britain, which was still, in many parts, in ruins as a result of World War II which had ended six years prior to the festival. The main exhibition site of the festival itself was based on London’s South Bank, situated alongside the River Thames. It was placed in an area that had been badly damaged by bombings from the war - it provided the perfect area to hold the site in which over the eight months that the festival ran, it is estimated that more than eight-and-a-half-million people attended this main site here in the heart of London. Many more people also attended the various other festivals scattered around Britain, which allowed everyone to come together and rejoice. The event was seen mainly as an opportunity to celebrate the end of the war and boost the morale of British Citizens. It was also seen as a milestone, one in which marked the end of a troubled past, yet looked ahead to the future, a hopeful future which promised so much, in design as well as in science and technology. As it is well put by Becky E. Conekin, the festival offered a chance to show some “pride in our past, but equally we have a duty to the future.”(2003). Britain had reason to be cheerful and The Festival of Britain allowed those from all corners of Britain to come together and celebrate as one, as a family. Becky E Conkein’s discussion on the film Family Portrait begins with her looking closely at the creator, Humphrey Jennings. Conekin mentions how Jennings had “made documentary propaganda films during the war” (2003). This immediately gives us some background information on the creator of the movie, but also perhaps suggests that propaganda may be involved within the movie.Conekin then goes on to look at the opening scenes of the film which involved “a hand opening a photo album”. This book acts almost as a history book of Britain, flicking through the pages of our past. This is accompanied by a male narrator informing the viewer “Perhaps because we in Britain live on a group of small islands – we like to think of ourselves as a family” (Conekin 2003) This coincides with the point I made about citizens from every corner of Britain coming together, this was a time where the past and future would be looked at, and Britain would come together as one. Continuing with the narration, Conekin looks at how the work of George Orwell is used in the film, this appears when narrator, Michael Goodliffe reads “...give thanks that we are still a family”. This can be linked to one of Orwell’s earlier essays, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the British Genius. In this work, as Conekin mentions, he asserted that England “resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family” (Orwell 1941). Orwell is suggesting that as a whole Britain is resembled as a family and The Festival of Britain provides a perfect example of this, where people from the top of Scotland right through to the bottom of England would come together to celebrate, showing that no matter what age, gender or background, Britain is one big family, and with the inclusion of the photo album right at the start of the film with the young and old shown, this motive is clear to see.Conekin continues her review by going on to look at how “images of bomb sites, a symbol of triumph – St Paul’s – and the white cliffs of Dover appeared on the screen” (2003). Conekin’s claim of St Paul’s being a “symbol of triumph” comes from the fact that despite London being heavily bombed, St Pauls remained standing after a fire bomb raid by the German Luftwaffe. The white cliffs of Dover likewise were also seen as an icon of the British coastline and therefore these, as Conekin documents, appear in the opening scenes of the film. The inclusion of these landmarks as well as the bomb sites goes to show that the past will forever be remembered, but we must look at it and give thanks that “we are still a family” (Conekin 2003) and we can now look forward to the future. I agree with the point that Conekin makes when she discusses pageantry in Britain being “normal, and natural” compared to that of Germany or Italy. She elaborates on this point by focusing on the next images in the film which “made up the ‘pattern of life’: rowing, rugby and National Mineworkers’ marches”. Britain was itself, it had its own traditions, and these are reflected closely in this film with reference to the coal miners as well as others, which we as an audience can reflect upon.

Conekin also makes an interesting point in the piece when she touches on how “those Britons who hailed from elsewhere, including Ireland and the former colonies, were almost never spoken about in The Festival of Britain”. This suggests to me that as a family, Britain as a whole perhaps turn their backs on ‘outsiders’ and do not accept them, this to me shows the difference between Britain in this time and Britain as we know it today, where the many different cultures can be seen in everyday life. The film Family Portrait does go on to argue however that “Britain should have closer ties with Europe and also act as a mediator with the rest of the world” (Conekin 2003) which perhaps shows the beginning of the changing phase that the Island as a whole would go through.Overall Conekin gives a real detailed review of the film and she gives us a real insight into not only what the film Family Portrait is about, but she also tries to bring in some additional context. She concludes her piece by bringing in various other views, one of which is by fellow film maker Lindsay Anderson who was disappointed it showed “only too sadly how the traditionalist spirit was unable to adjust itself to the changed circumstances of Britain after the war”. This links in to the point I made right at the start of this essay regarding Jennings’s propaganda past in the film industry, perhaps what we see in Family Portrait is only what he wants us to see, and it therefore portrays Britain as a family as its main priority.

The Radio Times and Playboy

In comparing and contrasting The Radio Times with Playboy outline the ways in which each magazine reflect respectively the ideology values of their nations of origin.Playboy began life in Chicago in 1953 when it was founded by Hugh Hefner and his associates. To this day, the American branded mag remains strong with it fashioning itself as being one of the highest selling men’s magazines in the world, with, in addition to this flagship magazine in the United States, a special nation-specific version, published around the world. Similar to this, the Radio Times also proved to be extremely popular in its homeland of Britain, as well as across Europe, and in some cases, across the world. It was founded in 1923, carrying details of BBC radio programmes, before eventually containing listings of TV and radio programmes for not just the BBC, but all major terrestrial cable and satellite channels in the UK.Within this essay I will look at both Playboy and the Radio Times looking at how they both reflect the ideology values of their nations of origin. I will also look at how each has used the media to their advantage, and show how the political significance of media organisations through different eras, in different parts of the world has affected both. Playboy founder Hugh Heffner was said to be chasing ‘The American Dream’ when setting out the ideology values of what was to become one of the most well known brands in the world. It is a term that “denotes a unique set of social and mortal ideas” (Fossum & Roth 1981). As it is put here, Heffner has in his own way managed to pass down his own values into the Playboy enterprise, creating a “unique set of social and mortal ideas”, the ideas in which involve showing nude women in magazines was something unique. Hefner has played a leading role in reshaping America’s social views, and for that reason Playboy has gone on to become one of the world’s leading trademarks as well as he himself becoming a multi-millionaire. This label of the ‘American Dream’ is something which is certainly captured within Playboy; it is something in which Fossum and Roth discuss in their book (1981): "To some people, the term is a joke, an object of satire, derision, or contempt, a made-in-America label for a congeries of chauvinistic clichés mouthed by jingoists... To others, it merely signifies self-determined success, wealth, the ‘good life’ of modish clothes, sports cars, and hot tubs."

Interestingly, there is mention here of the American dream involving “modish clothes, sports cars and hot tubs”, something again which is heavily present throughout Playboy, Heffner has clearly captured what he believes is this image of America, and he has made this vision come to life, making it his own. The magazine’s popularity continued to grow throughout not just America, but worldwide, during the 1950’s and early 1960’s Playboy met an historic moment, which is touched on by Bill Osgerby, it marked a “crucial moment in the displacement of a puritanical masculine ‘breadwinner’ ethos by a more hedonistic ‘playboy’ ideal” (2001). It was in this era that the enterprise, as discussed here by Osgerby, that the ethos of this Playboy ideology began to build momentum. This is backed up in the same book by Osgerby when there is mention of the role that Playboy played to readers, “the playboy was a fantasy role-model that few men could actually attain.” To live the life of a ‘Playmate’ seemed to be the life that men craved to live, it was the pinnacle so to speak, it was “the good life”, and this vision men had of Playboy would act as a fantasy role-model.Playboy can claim to be a factor to the James Bond ethos, which as described by Kevin Hagopian, corresponds with Bond becoming “ensconced in Anglophonic popular culture” (2009). This is backed up in a 1960 edition of Playboy in which the author of James Bond, Ian Flemming, claimed that if Bond was an actual person he “would be a registered reader of Playboy”. This goes to show that even in its early days Playboy not only reflected the ideology values of its own country, but also other countries across the world, including Britain, as summed up by James Bond. It didn’t take long for Playboy to establish itself as a pin-up magazine for males worldwide, but over the years it began to become ever more popular with the ‘new’ middle class “a rising faction whose habitués eschewed production and self-denial in favour of consumption, style and an ‘ethic of fun’”(Osgerby 2003). This “ethic of fun” put across to us by Osgerby here is present throughout the entire Playboy mantra, with women, alcohol and parties constant throughout. Playboy truly reflected the ideology of the men of its origin, and it proposed an almost ‘cartoon version of masculinity’ with this focus on alcohol, girls and partying. Playboys success didn’t come without trouble however, different phases such as the second wave of feminism in the late 1960’s, where “the centre of several great social transformations that remade post-World War II America: the sexual, consumer, and media revolutions” (Watts 2008). This second wave of feminism was followed by more problems for Heffner and Playboy, another great wave of social change –the movement for women’s rights- which according to Watts from the same book, “threatened to engulf the Playboy ship and capsize it”, something which again Heffner would survive and as a result the enterprise grew stronger. So with this in mind, did Playboys view on this cartoon version of men and women truly reflect the ideology values of America at the time? Maybe not, but it certainly “offered a stylish model for the modern male in this new world of sexual openness” (Watts, 2008). The magazine offered and promoted a sophisticated approach for post-war men, which certainly reflects the ideology of the origin that the magazine was created, so much so that the Playboy ideologies “became synonymous with the American Way of Life” (Watts 2008), this magazine in its own way began to alter the image people outside of America began to transfix with those inside.Following on from this view than those outside of Britain had of America, it led to the phrase that the Americans can ‘show us a thing or two’ about being up-to-date. As Richard Hoggart puts it, “America is the leader; and to be up-to-date is being made to seem very important” (1957). This, even to this day, is to an extent, correct. The term ‘Americanisation’ is used widely in the modern day to represent the way that we follow the American way of living, much like with Playboy, Britain has become accustomed to accept this, again, something which Hoggart brought up more than 50 years ago, “to me the most striking feature in British working-class attitudes to American is... a large readiness to accept”. Hoggarts anecdote that America can show us a thing or two is perfectly represented by Playboy and its affect on the ideology of not just its own origin, but the origin of Britain, and countries worldwide. Similar to this, The Radio Times has acted as an inspiration for the rest of the world to follow in suit. At first, as John Stevenson put it, “radio listening was essentially an enthusiasts pastime” (1984), but with time, much like Playboy it grew and grew, until it reached a point in 1939 where 34,000,000 million people were able to receive radio broadcasts, meaning the sales of The Radio Times increased massively. The radio essentially offered an alternative to going to the pub, or the more expensive option of going to the theatre, and provided entertainment as well as educating listeners, such as in 1939 when Britain’s declaration of war against Germany was broadcast first on the Radio. So with this in mind, the BBC brought in the ideology that their programmes would ‘inform, educate and entertain’, this is made clear when looking through an issue of The Radio Times from June 1977, news programmes are heavily present throughout which certainly informs the viewers, programmes such as “Open University” educate viewers, and finally, to entertain viewers, programmes such as “The Archers” are broadcast. Playboy magazines perhaps didn’t focus so much on educating readers, but more entertaining them.This June 1977 edition of the magazine is branded as a “souvenir issue”, it was published at the time of the Queens 25th anniversary to the throne. This means that the Royale Family were featured heavily throughout this edition of the magazine with the Queen also appearing on the cover page. As Akhtar and Humphries put it, “the BBC was a national institution, as revered as the royal family” (2001), this is proven not just in this edition of The Radio Times but in fact through their entire ideology, the BBC and the Royal Family seemed to be interlocked, they represented Britain at the time and respect was shown to them. During the 1970s there was a “clear trend towards more conservative and less adventurous programme-making” (Christopher 1999), the wedding of Princess Ann in 1974 and the Silver Jubilee of the Queen in which I have touched on, were two of the decades biggest televised events, meaning that The Radio Times would focus all attention on them, but they would also introduce programmes which were new to British television, but also programmes such as “My Fair Lady” and “Good Old Days”, opera continued the British tradition, continuity and nostalgia, this again represents a perfect ideological value of Britain at the time.Continuing with this ideology of The Radio Times, John Stevenson claimed in his book that “Broadcasting... played a large part in the standardising process of British culture” (1984), the fact that programmes involving the Royal Family, opera and other programmes linked with the ideology of Britain are all present throughout the magazine backs up this point. The ideology of Britain was reflected by the BBC and therefore throughout The Radio Times. It is thought that broadcasting also played a large part in the standardising process of British culture, this however changed in the 1920s when a network of regional stations were developed and “provided some stimulus to local culture” (Stevenson 1984), but there was little evidence by the 1940s that regional broadcasting had made any difference to the national network. This is down to the fact that the regions themselves, such as Wales, did not truly reflect real communities, they were instead large areas derived from a “London-based view of the country”. But none-the-less, this was a breakthrough, and The Radio Times began introducing the regional variations of programmes in their magazines. Magazines may come and go, but for nearly 90 years, The Radio Times has occupied a special place in the heart of millions of households throughout Britain. The proud to be British ideology it carries means that “to turn the yellow pages of the magazine... is to tap into a social history of Britain” (Currie 2001), The Radio Times represent to me what Britain is, and this is reflected in every single issue that has ever been published. Much like Playboy, The Radio Times was very much, and still to an extent is, aimed at the higher-class in society. This is achieved through the inclusion of the “southern upper-class speech” (Stevenson 1984) and also through the inclusion of opera throughout the listings. Playboy in the same way would advertise high-class penthouses within their magazines, such as in an August 1963 edition in which we have shots of a “Playboy Patio-Terrace”, both therefore would target those well off, after all you would have had to have been able to afford a TV or Radio to have any real interest in the magazine.

Like Playboy, the magazine also encountered its own problems, such as in the mid-1960s when the BBC opted to introduce a licence fee which proved to be very unpopular. This wasn’t the only problem that had to be overcome, such as in the 1980s when the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, came to blows so to speak with the corporation after the way they reported the Falklands conflict. But again, like Playboy these problems were eventually overcome and the magazine as a result has now improved. After looking at both magazines in detail it is clear to see that there are many similarities and differences between the two. Both have managed to reflect some of the ideologies of their nations of origin, and they have also introduced new ideologies. Playboy decided to go down the route of the American dream, which involved the good life, girls, alcohol and partying, these ideologies went on stereotypes of men of America and in a way, as I have touched on within this essay, Playboy has acted to an extent as a role-model to the men of America. The Radio Times have also crammed in ideologies of their nation of origin, Britain. The Royal Family are indented within these ideologies, and like with Playboy they have decided to use this to help them focus on their target audience of the higher-class audience. Another similarity between the two is that they have used technology to their advantage; both have used the breakthrough of the internet to their advantage with their own websites and they have both been at the forefront of the development of magazines, such as being able to download online. This, in the modern day, is a huge part of success, and both magazines have used it in order to succeed. One of the few differences between the two magazines is the inclusion of advertising, unlike The Radio Times, Playboy needs to generate revenue through advertising and this brings about the heavy use of advertising within the magazine, such as in one of its 1963 issues where items of furniture from the Playboy Mansion are all labelled with a price tag, such as the ‘Dining drinking island’ which is available for $399, The Radio Times instead focus simply on advertising the programmes on television, which after all is what the magazine specialises in. This is true even to this day, flicking through a modern-day version of Playboy advertising is present throughout, where as in The Radio Times there is very little, or in some cases, none at all. The brand that Playboy has built up is arguably one of the biggest in the world, with the now infamous Playboy Bunny included on thousands of products, and brining in millions of pounds each year for the corporation. The same can be said for The Radio Times, perhaps not quite on the same scale as Playboy, but no doubt, The Radio Times have maximised sales of their magazines through their own means, and it is down to this reason that both have been so hugely successful.Both magazines have used the ideologies of their nations of origins in order to invent up the idea, bring it to life, sell magazines, and to also keep it going after all these years, whether it is the American dream, or if it is the Royal Family, the ideologies have remained constant.Even after all these years, both magazines are still well known not just in their own nations of origins but across the globe, this is down to many factors, such as years of development, using the media to their advantage, but also from right at the start, proposing their ideas and eventually creating these magazines that will live on for a long time to come, Playboy and The Radio Times each represent products which have used certain ideologies in order to sell, and sell is exactly what they have done.